Cargando…

12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cerini, Tamara, Hilfiker, Roger, Riegler, Thomas F., Felsch, Quinten T. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9059354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35491417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3
_version_ 1784698293673000960
author Cerini, Tamara
Hilfiker, Roger
Riegler, Thomas F.
Felsch, Quinten T. M.
author_facet Cerini, Tamara
Hilfiker, Roger
Riegler, Thomas F.
Felsch, Quinten T. M.
author_sort Cerini, Tamara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility. METHODS: Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT. RESULTS: Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of − 0,01 [95% CI, − 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, − 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, − 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64]. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545. Registered 13 August 2019.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9059354
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90593542022-05-03 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study Cerini, Tamara Hilfiker, Roger Riegler, Thomas F. Felsch, Quinten T. M. Arch Physiother Research Article BACKGROUND: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility. METHODS: Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT. RESULTS: Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of − 0,01 [95% CI, − 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, − 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, − 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64]. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545. Registered 13 August 2019. BioMed Central 2022-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9059354/ /pubmed/35491417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cerini, Tamara
Hilfiker, Roger
Riegler, Thomas F.
Felsch, Quinten T. M.
12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title_full 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title_fullStr 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title_short 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
title_sort 12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9059354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35491417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00136-3
work_keys_str_mv AT cerinitamara 12weekshighintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustraininginchroniclowbackpainsubjectsarandomisedsingleblindedfeasibilitystudy
AT hilfikerroger 12weekshighintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustraininginchroniclowbackpainsubjectsarandomisedsingleblindedfeasibilitystudy
AT rieglerthomasf 12weekshighintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustraininginchroniclowbackpainsubjectsarandomisedsingleblindedfeasibilitystudy
AT felschquintentm 12weekshighintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustraininginchroniclowbackpainsubjectsarandomisedsingleblindedfeasibilitystudy